Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-24 06:58:33


>Comments? Is the above at least headed in the right direction?<

Yes, certainly we could use a common source directory for everything that
needs to be built as a binary.

Re autoconf: I had always imagined something like this:

1) configure boost/config.hpp
2) recurse though subdirectories - if the directory has its own configure
script then sporn it and don't recurse further, otherwise if the directory
has a then generate a makefile from it and continue recursion.

The main aim here is that libraries can have their own configure script if
necessary, and also generate makefiles for example programs / regression
tests etc. Its also easy on the administrator :-) BTW for library builds
of regex++ I had configure generate the library's as well -
simply by figuring out what .cpp files are present and then making sure
that all are present in, that way if I change the list of cpp
files that need to be built I don't need to rewrite configure or the
makefiles. I haven't tried automating this for win32 compilers - but I'm
sure it can be done. BTW while MS's cl.exe can just about be configured
with GNU configure, Borlands bcc32.exe can't be (command line options
aren't quite compatible).

- John.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at